Fundamental Windows 10 Issues: Priority and Focus

In a normal scenario the expected running of software on a computer is that all cores are equal, such that any thread can go anywhere and expect the same performance. As we’ve already discussed, the new Alder Lake design of performance cores and efficiency cores means that not everything is equal, and the system has to know where to put what workload for maximum effect.

To this end, Intel created Thread Director, which acts as the ultimate information depot for what is happening on the CPU. It knows what threads are where, what each of the cores can do, how compute heavy or memory heavy each thread is, and where all the thermal hot spots and voltages mix in. With that information, it sends data to the operating system about how the threads are operating, with suggestions of actions to perform, or which threads can be promoted/demoted in the event of something new coming in. The operating system scheduler is then the ring master, combining the Thread Director information with the information it has about the user – what software is in the foreground, what threads are tagged as low priority, and then it’s the operating system that actually orchestrates the whole process.

Intel has said that Windows 11 does all of this. The only thing Windows 10 doesn’t have is insight into the efficiency of the cores on the CPU. It assumes the efficiency is equal, but the performance differs – so instead of ‘performance vs efficiency’ cores, Windows 10 sees it more as ‘high performance vs low performance’. Intel says the net result of this will be seen only in run-to-run variation: there’s more of a chance of a thread spending some time on the low performance cores before being moved to high performance, and so anyone benchmarking multiple runs will see more variation on Windows 10 than Windows 11. But ultimately, the peak performance should be identical.

However, there are a couple of flaws.

At Intel’s Innovation event last week, we learned that the operating system will de-emphasise any workload that is not in user focus. For an office workload, or a mobile workload, this makes sense – if you’re in Excel, for example, you want Excel to be on the performance cores and those 60 chrome tabs you have open are all considered background tasks for the efficiency cores. The same with email, Netflix, or video games – what you are using there and then matters most, and everything else doesn’t really need the CPU.

However, this breaks down when it comes to more professional workflows. Intel gave an example of a content creator, exporting a video, and while that was processing going to edit some images. This puts the video export on the efficiency cores, while the image editor gets the performance cores. In my experience, the limiting factor in that scenario is the video export, not the image editor – what should take a unit of time on the P-cores now suddenly takes 2-3x on the E-cores while I’m doing something else. This extends to anyone who multi-tasks during a heavy workload, such as programmers waiting for the latest compile. Under this philosophy, the user would have to keep the important window in focus at all times. Beyond this, any software that spawns heavy compute threads in the background, without the potential for focus, would also be placed on the E-cores.

Personally, I think this is a crazy way to do things, especially on a desktop. Intel tells me there are three ways to stop this behaviour:

  1. Running dual monitors stops it
  2. Changing Windows Power Plan from Balanced to High Performance stops it
  3. There’s an option in the BIOS that, when enabled, means the Scroll Lock can be used to disable/park the E-cores, meaning nothing will be scheduled on them when the Scroll Lock is active.

(For those that are interested in Alder Lake confusing some DRM packages like Denuvo, #3 can also be used in that instance to play older games.)

For users that only have one window open at a time, or aren’t relying on any serious all-core time-critical workload, it won’t really affect them. But for anyone else, it’s a bit of a problem. But the problems don’t stop there, at least for Windows 10.

Knowing my luck by the time this review goes out it might be fixed, but:

Windows 10 also uses the threads in-OS priority as a guide for core scheduling. For any users that have played around with the task manager, there is an option to give a program a priority: Realtime, High, Above Normal, Normal, Below Normal, or Idle. The default is Normal. Behind the scenes this is actually a number from 0 to 31, where Normal is 8.

Some software will naturally give itself a lower priority, usually a 7 (below normal), as an indication to the operating system of either ‘I’m not important’ or ‘I’m a heavy workload and I want the user to still have a responsive system’. This second reason is an issue on Windows 10, as with Alder Lake it will schedule the workload on the E-cores. So even if it is a heavy workload, moving to the E-cores will slow it down, compared to simply being across all cores but at a lower priority. This is regardless of whether the program is in focus or not.

Of the normal benchmarks we run, this issue flared up mainly with the rendering tasks like CineBench, Corona, POV-Ray, but also happened with yCruncher and Keyshot (a visualization tool). In speaking to others, it appears that sometimes Chrome has a similar issue. The only way to fix these programs was to go into task manager and either (a) change the thread priority to Normal or higher, or (b) change the thread affinity to only P-cores. Software such as Project Lasso can be used to make sure that every time these programs are loaded, the priority is bumped up to normal.

Intel Disabled AVX-512, but Not Really Power: P-Core vs E-Core, Win10 vs Win11
Comments Locked

474 Comments

View All Comments

  • JayNor - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    "In the aggregate scores, an E-core is roughly 54-64% of a P-core, however this percentage can go as high as 65-73%."

    It isn't clear what you mean here. A P-core second thread on the same core would be expected to add around 30%.

    A more understandable test would something like Intel presented of Gracemont 4C4T vs Skylake 2C4T, although it would also be interesting to see performance and power of 8C8T vs 2C4T of Golden Cove, since they reportedly occupy a similar layout space.
  • SystemsBuilder - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    Really happy to see AVX-512 is available with a simple BIOS switch!
    This looks to me like how AVX-512 should have been implemented in Sky lake, Cascade lake and Rocket lake and now they finally are getting it right:
    Alder lake seams to have:
    - both AVX-512 ports enabled (port 0 and 5) !
    - able to run at negative offset = 0 for both AVX2 and AVX-512!
    - AVX-512 power consumption seams too be in line with AVX2!
    Excellent in other words! Since the silicon is there, if they can get the scheduler to manage heterogeneous (P/E) cores there is now no down side with enabling AVX-512.

    -
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    I guess you missed the sentence about how the MSI boards don’t have the switch, the sentence about how it’s actually not supposed to be there, and the sentence about how it could be eliminated in the future.

    Additionally, what high-end motherboards offer in BIOS may be more than what is offered in more affordable models. Vendors might restrict this unofficial ‘support’ to top models.

    The entire situation is completely incompetent. It’s patently absurd.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    It raises a very serious question about Gelsinger’s leadership.

    All the hype about putting an engineer in charge and we have this utter inanity as the result.
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    > It raises a very serious question about Gelsinger’s leadership.

    I'm sure this decision never crossed his desk. It would be made probably 2+ levels below him, in the management hierarchy.

    Moreover, he's been in charge for only about 8 months or so. Do you have any idea how long it takes to steer a big ship like Intel? This decision wasn't made yesterday. It would require OS support, which means they'd have had to get buy-in from Microsoft for it, many months ago.

    And that's just if you're talking about the decision not to allow partial AVX-512 enabling. The decision to exclude it from Gracemont was made many years ago. Its exclusion was possibly considered a necessity for Gracemont's success, due to the perf/area -> perf/$ impact.
  • Oxford Guy - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    If Gelsinger wasn’t aware of the lie about fusing off and all of the other critically-important aspects involved he’s either a charlatan or Intel is structurally incompetent.
  • Wrs - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    Why all the fuss about a technically unsupported feature? The only consumer chips officially to have AVX-512 contain Rocket Lake cores. Not Zen 3, or 2, or Comet Lake, or Alder Lake. If you find your Alder Lake has hidden AVX-512 abilities, how's that any different from finding out you can enable 6 cores on your 4-core Celeron?
  • mode_13h - Saturday, November 6, 2021 - link

    > The only consumer chips officially to have AVX-512 contain Rocket Lake cores.

    Ice Lake and Tiger Lake do, but they're only in laptops, NUCs, and SFF PCs.
  • zodiacfml - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    that guy is hating on Gelsinger.
  • Qasar - Sunday, November 7, 2021 - link

    that guy hates on everything

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now